--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:06:43 +0200, alex
> <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
> >>> I don't see any "u" in Rom. forms. Nu e greu sã se
intseleagã.
> >>
> >> I meant "¿qué?".
> >>
> >> Latin /kwe/ becomes /ke/ (Sp. que, Ita. che), and is then
> >> palatalized, like original /ke/, only in Romanian (ce).
> >> So accu-istum > akwesto/akwestu > akesto/akestu (and further
> >>> ac^est(u) in Rom.)
> >>
> >>
> >> =======================
> >> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> >> mcv@...
> >
> I have no idea what that sentence means. Initial a- is a-.
It is the procedure one use for establishing the etymology:"it is in
another romance something similar, then is this for sure from Latin".
We take an *accu for explaining the "a" in acest, but we need an
*acce for explaining the "c^". The *accu does not fit since the "u"
does not go syncoped as you put it on the paper (akwest > ak(w)est >
ac^est). The evidence on the terrain in the language shows there is
no lost of "u" here in compositum. If one will want to have *accu +
estu meaning final "u" got lost, I would like to remember the
final "u" was lost in very recent times, long, long time after the
palatalisation required by "acest" did happen.
I said the evidence on the terrain shows the "u" remains there.
let us see some supposed combinations from Latin
*accu modo > acuma/acum/acu (now)
*accu illoc > acolo (there)
*accu estu > ac^est
Going later on the time line, almost to our times, we see again
composita where the "u" final is stil there.
dracu + escu > dracuescu > drãcuiesc
(in)cerc + este > incercuieste
It is just an example of many. But all of them shows the final "u"
is kept in composita , thus *accu-est does not fit for Rom,
regardless how similar to you seems.
My thoughts are, they are just false friends since in Rom. this is
the result of IE *k^ and in Romance, the "qu" is the result of Latin
kW;
Alex